GPL enforcement: waiting for the Monsoon [LWN.net]

GPL enforcement: waiting for the Monsoon

Posted Sep 26, 2007 21:00 UTC (Wed) by vmole (guest, #111)
In reply to: GPL enforcement: waiting for the Monsoon by ajross
Parent article: GPL enforcement: waiting for the Monsoon

I don't. They made a conscious decision to use Linux and Busybox. While "Busybox" may not have rung any bells to any non-techies, I can't believe that "Linux" didn't.

Or rather, I can believe that certain people in Monsoon's management ignored the tech folks. I simply can't believe they did it through ignorance.

(Log in to post comments)

GPL enforcement: waiting for the Monsoon

Posted Sep 27, 2007 4:38 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]

It is eminently plausible and indeed probable. Maybe you have always worked with pretty smart clueful people, but there are quite a few people out there, successful businessmen and developers, who are so clueless that they wouldn't realize how important the GPL is to whatever code they are using. Maybe they heard of Linux being free software that thousands contribute to, but the strange concept that this freely (beer) available software has weird strings attached requiring them to publish their own changes .... well, that is just not a concept that has ever entered their heads. It is in fact so alien to hem that even if they read the GPL, it will not sink in. Their brains are not prepared for such an inside out concept. I have friends who know something of free software but are not developers, and they have trouble understanding this sharing. It is by no means intuitive in today's society full of DRM and lawyers.

GPL enforcement: waiting for the Monsoon

Posted Sep 27, 2007 8:21 UTC (Thu) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link]

Yup, I have to +1 this. This is quite normal, happens every day and there is nothing to be surprised of.

At the same time, I think going for the lawsuit is the right thing to do, it is the only way to wake up these types. Unfortunately.

Posted Sep 27, 2007 18:48 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

Sure, the previous quote from a MM representative shows the kind of mentality you two are talking about:

Seems to me that some of you have just come out blatantly admitting you are reverse engineering the firmware - or trying to. How should we handle this?

And true also, the lawsuit might be the only way to go. It is something that clueful developers can show their clueless bosses in the future. They might not understand "it is about sharing code", but they will surely understand "we just might get sued if we don't".

GPL enforcement: waiting for the Monsoon

Posted Sep 27, 2007 16:47 UTC (Thu) by amikins (guest, #451) [Link]

I also have to support this sentiment. Most business managerial types in my experience, even in small businesses that might rely more heavily on the input of their tech folks than average, are simply not prepared to comprehend the notion of copyleft. For many, the idea that they're /required/ to release the source code -- still seen as a secret recipe for software -- is baffling. Additionally, some who bother to realize that is a legal requirement would balk at using such software in the first place.